Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

39   Organize for Success (Step 2) Step 2 recognizes that any successful program or policy initiative depends on an effective organizational structure, an assignment of and accountability for program responsibilities, and on having the resources necessary to achieve program objectives. In this case, orga- nizing for success includes both internal governance and leadership capabilities as well as the external institutional arrangements that foster effective collabora- tions with partner organizations. In this case, governance is distinguished from leadership in that it includes the institutional structures and channels of authority and responsibility within an organization. Leadership, on the other hand, refers to the characteristic of individual managers and staff that allows them to influence the overall direction of policy development and implementation. Capability Factors and Levels of Maturity Factor 2.1: Does your agency have a resilience strategy/program? One of the most important indicators of organizational attention on transportation system resilience is the existence of a resilience strategy and/or program. This could include a formal policy statement and program elements, dedicated staff and leadership for fostering a more resilient transportation system, and dedicated funding to resilience-oriented projects and strategies. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which your agency has developed and formally implemented a structured resilience strategy. • Level 1: We have made a commitment to transportation system resilience; implementing this “strategy” relies on the efforts of individual units that have responsibility for resilience-related activities. It is the responsibility of each unit to do the best they can to improve transporta- tion system resilience. There is no overall leadership and accountability for the success of our agency’s resilience efforts. • Level 2: We have adopted a formal strategy for transportation system resilience and have developed a program of actions throughout the agency. Coordination occurs among the functional unit efforts so as to ensure that collaborative, agency-wide resilience initiatives are successful. The degree of formal coordination and leadership accountability is also part of other factors below. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, there are agency efforts to enhance resilience capabilities by focusing on organizational structure, staff responsibilities, internal and external coordination and information flow protocols, and professional development/ training. The strategy is agency-wide and centrally coordinated. The level of participation of top agency managers in this coordination is part of another factor below. C H A P T E R   4

40 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Factor 2.2: Has a document describing your resilience strategy/program been developed? One indicator of having an organizationally adopted resilience strategy/program is the development of a document that describes intent, program content, and measures of success. Such a document could be used internally to expose agency staff to the agency’s efforts in system resilience or used externally to provide key stakeholders or the general public with an under- standing of what the agency is doing. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which written documentation of your agency’s resilience efforts has been developed. • Level 1: Information on our agency’s resilience program is scattered across multiple inter- nally focused documents. The content is usually the responsibility of individual units. The documents are not updated regularly. • Level 2: We have a single document that contains sections on each of our agency’s resilience responsibilities. The document is not updated regularly. • Level 3: We have a formal, publicly available document that comprehensively describes all aspects of our agency’s resilience strategy. Updates to the document are made on a regular basis, most often with updates centralized in a unit with such a responsibility. Factor 2.3: Has leadership of the resilience strategy/program been assigned in your agency? Assigning clear accountability for the responsibility of a resilience strategy is an important factor leading to successful program implementation and operation. Those agencies that have adopted a pro-active resilience strategy have either assigned or created a position in the agency having such a responsibility. This has occurred by either giving leadership responsibilities to an existing unit head or by creating a cross-unit position that can coordinate agency resilience activities. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which the leadership of the resilience strategy in your agency has been formally assigned to an individual, group, or unit. • Level 1: Leadership of the resilience strategy/program rests solely with the managers of the individual units having roles in our resilience efforts. This means, for example, that the head of traffic operations is responsible for resilience efforts in that unit; the head of planning is responsible for such efforts in planning; and the like. No single person has been designated to lead our agency’s resilience strategy/program. • Level 2: We have assigned specific leadership responsibilities for resilience efforts to one or more staff members as part of their job responsibilities. The resilience efforts of these staff members are reported to top management on a periodic basis. • Level 3: We have established a central leadership role (either a management position or an office/department) whose primary responsibility is the resilience strategy/program. This leadership position has authority and accountability to direct our agency’s resilience efforts. Factor 2.4: Have staff been assigned to support the agency’s resilience strategy/program? One of the indicators of a serious agency commitment to any particular program area is the assignment of staff in support of its implementation and operation. This could range from temporary staff assignments to the resilience program (e.g., during a start-up phase) to a full- time staff commitment. One measure of such commitment is how formal staff responsibilities have been defined (e.g., incorporated into job descriptions). The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor as the degree to which staff resources have been dedicated to the agency’s resilience efforts.

Organize for Success (Step 2) 41   • Level 1: We rely on existing staff in those units having responsibility for resilience-related activities to support our resilience efforts. These staff members understand that part of their job is to improve our resilience program. However, these staff do not meet regularly to coordinate efforts in the agency and to identify improvements to the strategy/program. • Level 2: We have achieved a Level 1 maturity. We have also established a means of exchanging information amongst staff and coordinating resilience efforts where necessary. Staff meetings occur regularly to identify improvements to our agency’s resilience strategy/program. • Level 3: We have assigned dedicated staff to the resilience strategy/program whose primary job responsibility is implementing the program. These staff members understand that part of their job is to improve our resilience program. There are examples where this staff has produced reports or other recommendations to improve our agency’s resilience strategy/ program. The staff reports to the resilience strategy/program leadership. Factor 2.5: Has some mechanism been established (e.g., an advisory group, task force, council) to coordinate resilience efforts? Resilience efforts will likely occur in many functional units in a transportation agency. Thus, the development of an agency-wide resilience strategy and its implementation will involve a variety of agency interests and a range of perspectives of what resilience means to your agency’s efforts. Most transportation agency efforts to establish a resilience strategy have included the creation of some form of coordinating mechanism to provide leadership on the agency’s activities, a sounding board for new ideas, and accountability for making sure the strategy is implemented successfully. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which formal coordination among different agency units occurs for the agency’s resilience efforts. • Level 1: We rely on ad hoc efforts, usually occurring through the responsibility and initiative of the unit leads. Such coordination happens on an as-needed basis. • Level 2: We have created an advisory group with representatives from the relevant resilience- related units. To the extent an identified staff lead for resilience has been established, this group works with this position to support resilience strategy implementation. The advisory group meets as needed. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, the coordinating group includes a broad representation of our agency’s functional units and district offices and has been assigned more resources to accomplish its mandate. The group works with the staff lead for resilience, and resources have been provided to the advisory committee and agency lead to undertake initiatives to enhance our resilience efforts. The group meets on a set schedule. Factor 2.6: Is the agency CEO/director aware of and involved in the resilience program? The interest and involvement of the agency CEO in any agency initiative convey the impor- tance of that initiative to the agency staff. Those agencies that have made the most progress in implementing a resilience strategy have usually included the active involvement of the CEO and other top management officials. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which the CEO is aware of the agency’s resilience strategy/program and monitors the progress in its implementation. • Level 1: The CEO/director is aware of the resilience strategy/program and is updated during normal agency performance reviews. No formal plan has been developed for conveying information on the strategy/program to future CEOs/directors.

42 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide • Level 2: The CEO/director is aware of the resilience strategy/program and regularly monitors its implementation. Special briefings are provided on different aspects of the resilience program. No formal plan has been developed for conveying information on the strategy/ program to future CEOs/directors. • Level 3: The CEO/director is aware of the resilience strategy/program, regularly monitors its implementation, and often speaks publicly about our agency’s efforts. As part of the resilience program, there is a formal plan to convey information on the strategy/program to new CEOs and top agency leaders. Factor 2.7: Are department heads within the agency aware of and involved in the resilience program? Similar to the above factor, department head interest and participation in the agency’s resilience strategy is a strong indicator of a well-thought-out program. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which department heads are involved in your agency’s resilience efforts. • Level 1: Department heads are aware of the resilience program and are primarily involved in resilience efforts in their own units. They do not participate in a collaborative, agency-wide resilience strategy. • Level 2: Department heads are aware of the resilience program and are members of an agency-wide task force/advisory committee to guide agency resilience efforts. Department heads have participated in professional development opportunities on resilience. • Level 3: We have achieved Level 2 maturity. In addition, department heads have been involved in collaborative agency efforts to enhance our resilience program. Department heads are encouraged to identify budget requests for activities that will enhance our agency’s resilience efforts. Factor 2.8: Have resilience-related job responsibilities been assigned to agency staff? Some transportation agencies have assigned resilience responsibilities (usually in relation to emergency response) to every staff member in the agency. This not only establishes areas of expertise and capability in the agency for resilience efforts but conveys to the staff (and to others outside the agency) that resilience is a core value of the organization. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which system resilience responsibilities have been incorporated into staff responsibilities. • Level 1: We have assigned specific resilience job responsibilities only to operations and maintenance staff and the staff responsible for managing the resilience program. • Level 2: We have assigned each staff member within the organization specific job responsi- bilities with respect to resilience, even if nothing more than to be on stand-by for emergency response efforts. • Level 3: We have assigned each staff member within the organization specific job responsibilities with respect to resilience and provided appropriate training. Several staff are cross-trained to assist with tasks during emergency events that are different than their typical day-to-day functions. Factor 2.9: Does your agency use quality assurance/quality control processes in managing your resilience program? Many of the activities and efforts to enhance the resilience activities of your agency will involve the use of asset and system performance data and the implementation of processes that

Organize for Success (Step 2) 43   require dedicated and motivated staff participation. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) processes are an important check on the credibility and effectiveness of such data use and process implementation. This factor focuses on the existence of such QA/QC processes as part of your agency’s resilience efforts. • Level 1: We use QA/QC processes for some of the data collection efforts that have tradition- ally been part of our agency’s data collection efforts (e.g., pavement and bridge management systems). • Level 2: We have included QA/QC processes for every data collection effort associated with our resilience program. We have assigned staff responsibilities for conducting such QA/QC. • Level 3: We have achieved Level 2 maturity. In addition, we have included QA/QC processes as part of every resilience effort in our agency, not just data collection efforts. It is part of the standard operating procedures for establishing new resilience programs. The QA/QC processes are written and are reexamined periodically for their effectiveness in assuring credible resilience actions. Factor 2.10: Has your agency been working closely with local jurisdictions in supporting efforts to develop more resilient communities? Transportation agencies, not surprisingly, focus the majority of their attention on the trans- portation system for which they are responsible. However, in many cases, other agencies and local governments seek their input and advice on topics given the technical expertise and competence of agency staff. This can be true in the general topic of resilience. This factor reflects the degree to which your agency adopts a leadership role in resilience efforts within your jurisdiction. This leadership role will be constrained by staff and budget resources, but taking a leadership role can also occur by interacting with communities from the perspective of providing technical guidance and speakers for resilience forums. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the degree to which your agency has adopted a leader- ship role in fostering community resilience, including a resilient transportation system. This includes the level to which staff responsibilities have been assigned to working with local communities. • Level 1: We will respond to local community requests for presentations or technical material on resilient transportation systems as staff resources allow. Our focus in these efforts is on a resilient transportation system. • Level 2: We have provided technical support for a small number of communities seeking advice on resilient infrastructure and, more generally, on resilient communities. This inter- action occurs at the discretion of individual unit managers. • Level 3: We have assigned staff as liaisons to communities seeking technical help in developing more resilient infrastructure and supporting actions. This is an effort to place our agency in a leadership position with respect to enhancing resilience considerations in all decision-making. We actively market our willingness to help local communities (within staff constraints). Factor 2.11: Has coordination occurred with federal, state, and local agencies involved in setting climate adaptation policy? Climate change and extreme weather concerns require nontraditional forms of collabora- tion and partnership. Agencies involved with climate change adaptation have often established relationships with climate scientists (often with a state university), environmental and natural resource agencies, environmental advocacy groups, professional organizations interested in

44 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide adaptive design, and the like. Although representing just one source of disruption to trans- portation system resilience, including climate change and extreme weather concerns in the agency’s resilience strategy is an indication of a level of maturity to develop a proactive, all-hazards approach to system resilience. The different levels of maturity are defined in this factor by the type of coordination that has occurred with others in developing a climate change adaptation policy and strategy. • Level 1: Our coordination has been limited to commenting on proposed legislation, regula- tions, and permitting requirements that will affect our agency. In essence, we respond only when asked to. We have very limited to no coordination with local government resilience and adaptation planning. • Level 2: Our coordination has been limited to commenting on proposed legislation, regula- tions, and permitting requirements that will affect the agency. Proactive monitoring of these policies occurs, but feedback is primarily reactive. We have actively undertaken some coordination with local government resilience and adaptation planning. • Level 3: We are proactive in influencing proposed resilience legislation, regulations, and permitting requirements that will affect our agency’s resilience efforts. Wherever possible, agency staff serve on relevant committees and boards helping to set such policies. Coordina- tion with local government adaptation planning efforts is standard practice. Table 7 shows the factors that are included in the self-assessment tool for Step 2. The maturity levels for each factor are presented in the descriptions of each factor. Recommended Actions to Maintain the Highest Level of Agency Resilience Capability The highest level of capability for Step 2: Organize for Success focuses on continual improve- ment in agency capability and actions for this agency characteristic. If your agency has reached Level 3, the highest level of agency capability, the following recommended actions focus on maintaining this level: • Periodically reassess the organization of your agency’s resilience efforts with respect to different roles in transportation system resilience. This includes periodically assessing the organizational structure that has been created to guide your agency’s efforts. This could be done in-house or by bringing in a third-party evaluator to conduct the assessment. • Periodically reassess your QA/QC processes as they relate to your agency’s resilience efforts to assure they are providing credible information for resilience-oriented decision-making. • Update written documentation describing your resilience program as new developments occur. • Continually involve agency staff in identifying actions that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of your agency’s resilience efforts. • Assess the leadership responsibilities for the resilience program periodically to assure the current assignment of responsibilities is effective and that resilience actions are indeed being implemented. Similarly, assess staff responsibilities and actions to identify improvements to the processes and procedures that are the foundation of your resilience program. Are the staff providing the needed support to the resilience program in effective and efficient ways? • Periodically obtain input from agency leaders on the appropriateness, timeliness, and quality of information provided to them on the status and performance of the resilience program. Make changes as needed. • Provide input and briefings to new managers in the agency on the resilience program, the organizational responsibilities and structure for the program, and expected benefits and outcomes.

(continued on next page) Maturity Factor Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 2.1 Does your agency have a resilience strategy/ program? We have made a commitment to transportation system resilience; implementing this “strategy” relies on the efforts of individual units that have responsibility for resilience-related activities. It is the responsibility of each unit to do the best they can to improve transportation system resilience. There is no overall leadership and accountability for the success of our agency’s resilience efforts. We have adopted a formal strategy for transportation system resilience and have developed a program of actions throughout the agency. Coordination occurs among the functional unit efforts so as to ensure that collaborative, agency-wide resilience initiatives are successful. The degree of formal coordination and leadership accountability is also part of other factors below. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, there are agency efforts to enhance resilience capabilities by focusing on organizational structure, staff responsibilities, internal and external coordination and information flow protocols, and professional development/training. The strategy is agency- wide and centrally coordinated. The level of participation of top agency managers in this coordination is part of another factor below. 2.2 Has a document describing your resilience strategy/ program been developed? Information on our agency’s resilience program is scattered across multiple internally focused documents. The content is usually the responsibility of individual units. The documents are not updated regularly. We have a single document that contains sections on each of our agency’s resilience responsibilities. The document is not updated regularly. We have a formal, publicly available document that comprehensively describes all aspects of our agency’s resilience strategy. Updates to the document are made on a regular basis, most often with updates centralized in a unit with such a responsibility. 2.3 Has leadership of the resilience strategy/ program been assigned in your agency? Leadership of the resilience strategy/program rests solely with the managers of the individual units having roles in our resilience efforts. This means, for example, that the head of traffic operations is responsible for resilience efforts in that unit; the head of planning is responsible for such efforts in planning; and the like. No single person has been designated to lead our agency’s resilience strategy/program. We have assigned specific leadership responsibilities for resilience efforts to one or more staff members as part of their job responsibilities. The resilience efforts of these staff members are reported to top management on a periodic basis. We have established a central leadership role (either a management position or an office/department) whose primary responsibility is the resilience strategy/program. This leadership position has authority and accountability to direct our agency’s resilience efforts. 2.4 Have staff been assigned to support the agency’s resilience strategy/program? We rely on existing staff in those units having responsibility for resilience- related activities to support our resilience efforts. These staff members understand that part of their job is to improve our resilience program. However, these staff do not meet regularly to coordinate efforts in the agency and to identify improvements to the strategy/program. We have achieved a Level 1 maturity. We have also established a means of exchanging information amongst staff and coordinating resilience efforts where necessary. Staff meetings occur regularly to identify improvements to our agency’s resilience strategy/ program. We have assigned dedicated staff to the resilience strategy/program whose primary job responsibility is implementing the program. These staff members understand that part of their job is to improve our resilience program. There are examples where this staff has produced reports or other recommendations to improve our agency’s resilience strategy/program. The staff reports to the resilience strategy/program leadership. Table 7. Assessment table for Step 2: Organize for Success.

2.5 Has some mechanism been established (e.g., an advisory group, task force, council) to coordinate resilience efforts? We rely on ad hoc efforts, usually occurring through the responsibility and initiative of the unit leads. Such coordination happens on an as-needed basis. We have created an advisory group with representatives from the relevant resilience-related units. To the extent an identified staff lead for resilience has been established, this group works with this position to support resilience strategy implementation. The advisory group meets as needed. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, the coordinating group includes a broad representation of our agency’s functional units and district offices and has been assigned more resources to accomplish its mandate. The group works with the staff lead for resilience, and resources have been provided to the advisory committee and agency lead to undertake initiatives to enhance our resilience efforts. The group meets on a set schedule. 2.6 Is the agency CEO/director aware of and involved in the resilience program? The CEO/director is aware of the resilience strategy/program and is updated during normal agency performance reviews. No formal plan has been developed for conveying information on the strategy/program to future CEOs/directors. The CEO/director is aware of the resilience strategy/program and regularly monitors its implementation. Special briefings are provided on different aspects of the resilience program. No formal plan has been developed for conveying information on the strategy/program to future CEOs/directors. The CEO/director is aware of the resilience strategy/program, regularly monitors its implementation, and often speaks publicly about our agency’s efforts. As part of the resilience program, there is a formal plan to convey information on the strategy/program to new CEOs and top agency leaders. 2.7 Are department heads within the agency aware of and involved in the resilience program? Department heads are aware of the resilience program and are primarily involved in resilience efforts in their own units. They do not participate in a collaborative, agency-wide resilience strategy. Department heads are aware of the resilience program and are members of an agency-wide task force/advisory committee to guide agency resilience efforts. Department heads have participated in professional development opportunities on resilience. We have achieved Level 2 maturity. In addition, department heads have been involved in collaborative agency efforts to enhance our resilience program. Department heads are encouraged to identify budget requests for activities that will enhance our agency’s resilience efforts. 2.8 Have resilience- related job responsibilities been assigned to staff? We have assigned specific resilience job responsibilities only to operations and maintenance staff and the staff responsible for managing the resilience program. We have assigned each staff member within the organization specific job responsibilities with respect to resilience, even if nothing more than to be on stand-by for emergency response efforts. We have assigned each staff member within the organization specific job responsibilities with respect to resilience and provided appropriate training. Several staff are cross- trained to assist with tasks during emergency events that are different than their typical day-to-day functions. Maturity Factor Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) Table 7. (Continued).

2.10 Has your agency been working closely with local jurisdictions in supporting efforts to develop more resilient communities? We will respond to local community requests for presentations or technical material on resilient transportation systems as staff resources allow. Our focus in these efforts is on a resilient transportation system. We have provided technical support for a small number of communities seeking advice on resilient infrastructure and, more generally, on resilient communities. This interaction occurs at the discretion of individual unit managers. We have assigned staff as liaisons to communities seeking technical help in developing more resilient infrastructure and supporting actions. This is an effort to place our agency in a leadership position with respect to enhancing resilience considerations in all decision-making. We actively market our willingness to help local communities (within staff constraints). 2.11 Has coordination occurred with federal, state, and local agencies involved in setting climate adaptation policy? Our coordination has been limited to commenting on proposed legislation, regulations, and permitting requirements that will affect our agency. In essence, we respond only when asked to. We have very limited to no coordination with local government resilience and adaptation planning. Our coordination has been limited to commenting on proposed legislation, regulations, and permitting requirements that will affect the agency. Proactive monitoring of these policies occurs, but feedback is primarily reactive. We have actively undertaken some coordination with local government resilience and adaptation planning. We are proactive in influencing proposed resilience legislation, regulations, and permitting requirements that will affect our agency’s resilience efforts. Wherever possible, agency staff serve on relevant committees and boards helping to set such policies. Coordination with local government adaptation planning efforts is standard practice. Score Range Description of Agency Maturity in Organizing for Success 0 to 15 Your agency is emerging into this area and has taken initial steps to grow awareness and understanding of the types of strategies it can implement for organizing for success. 16 to 28 Your agency has implemented several strategies for organizing for success, not so much as part of an agency-wide strategy but rather at the initiative of agency staff. 29 to 33 Your agency has reached significant maturity in organizing and implementing a strategy for organizing for success. The major focus should be on maintaining and enhancing existing efforts when appropriate and taking advantage of new opportunities as they become available. 2.9 Does your agency use quality assurance/quality control processes in managing your resilience program? We use QA/QC processes for some of the data collection efforts that have traditionally been part of our agency’s data collection efforts (e.g., pavement and bridge management systems). We have included QA/QC processes for every data collection effort associated with our resilience program. We have assigned staff responsibilities for conducting such QA/QC. We have achieved Level 2 maturity. In addition, we have included QA/QC processes as part of every resilience effort in our agency, not just data collection efforts. It is part of the standard operating procedures for establishing new resilience programs. The QA/QC processes are written and are reexamined periodically for their effectiveness in assuring credible resilience actions.

48 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide • Continue to monitor the resilience of the transportation system and consider changes in performance when making organizational changes in your agency. • Periodically assess resilience partnerships with local communities from the perspective of your agency’s leadership in fostering more resilient communities. • Participate in and/or lead meetings with partner agencies and groups to reinforce the impor- tance of collaboration and coordination in enhancing system resilience and evaluating the effectiveness of collaborative efforts. • Update staff professional development and training opportunities to include the latest thinking and concepts in system resilience. If you did not score a 33 in the assessment (a perfect score in Level 3 efforts), identify those factors that were rated lower and identify a strategy or action steps to improve these particular components of Step 2. Recommended Actions to Achieve Higher Levels of Resilience Capability If you scored at Level 1 or 2, you can take steps to continue your evolution toward a more resilience-oriented agency. In such cases, agency managers should identify which of the factors in Table 7 were most lacking and determine priorities for improving your agency’s orga- nization. Table 8 is offered as a template to determine which steps your agency can take to improve your agency’s resilience capabilities, who should be responsible, the timeframe for the implementation, and expected outcomes. Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? Establish a formal resilience strategy/program. This might require legislative approval or, at a minimum, agency directives and guidance. Prepare a written document describing your resilience strategy/program. This documentation should describe the rationale for the program, how it is structured, expected outcomes, and ultimate benefits to your jurisdiction. Assign leadership responsibilities of the resilience strategy/program in your agency. This might be structured as a central authority for all resilience efforts or the assignment of responsibilities for individual components of the program. Assign staff to support the resilience strategy/program. Such assignments should be clear in terms of how activities contribute to program objectives and QA/QC procedures that should accompany staff efforts. Create an institutional mechanism to coordinate resilience efforts. Such a mechanism (e.g., task force, coordinating committee, and the like) would be given a clear mandate and prepare expected products as they relate to your agency’s resilience program. Table 8. Actions to achieve higher maturity for Step 2: Organize for Success.

Organize for Success (Step 2) 49   Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? Involve the agency CEO/director in the resilience program. Periodically reassess the usefulness of the information provided to the CEO with respect to the types of decisions they must make relating to the resilience program. Involve department heads in the resilience program. This could be part of a formal coordinating group or frequent meetings to coordinate resilience activities. Assign resilience-related job responsibilities to agency staff job descriptions and talent profiles. Enhancing transportation system resilience should be part of all relevant staff job activities, both for emergency response efforts and more long-term efforts to improve asset and system resilience. Possible actions for Step 4: Implement Early Wins Table 8. (Continued). Useful Resources AASHTO. n.d. Infrastructure Resilience. Website. Links to examples of adaptation and resilience efforts. Center for Environmental Excellence. Retrieved June  30, 2020, from https://environment.transportation.org/ environmental_topics/infrastructure_resilience/ FHWA. 2016. 2013–2015 Climate Resilience Pilot Program: Outcomes, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations. Report FHWA-HEP-16-079, July. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/pilots/ FHWA. 2017. Climate Change Resilience Pilots. Website. Links to climate change pilot studies. Retrieved June  30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/pilots/2013-2015_ pilots/index.cfm FHWA. 2017. Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd ed. Report FHWA-HEP-18-020. Dec. Retrieved March  28, 2021, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ adaptation_framework/ FTA. 2014. Transit and Climate Change Adaptation: Synthesis of FTA-Funded Pilot Projects. Report FTA Report No. 0069. Aug. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/FTA_Report_ No._0069.pdf Georgetown Climate Center. n.d. Website. Links to example climate adaptation efforts and plans. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.georgetownclimate.org/ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2018. Community Resilience Center of Excellence. Website. Examples of community resilience efforts. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.nist.gov/coe/ community-resilience-center-excellence